Career Palace (Guanlu)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds no behavioral context (e.g., permissions, rate limits, or side effects), but the example request is a minor positive. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate as it neither adds nor contradicts.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and includes an example, but it lacks structure and a full sentence explaining the tool's purpose. It is concise but omits necessary detail, making it minimally adequate.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool in an esoteric system with no output schema, the description provides insufficient context. It does not explain what the career palace represents, what data it returns, or how it differs from other palace tools. The agent would lack understanding of the tool's output.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents parameters. The description does not add parameter meaning beyond the example request. Per guidelines, baseline 3 applies; the example is insufficient to raise the score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description provides only keywords ('Profession, status, official position') and a group label, lacking a clear verb+resource statement of what the tool does. It does not explicitly state that it analyzes or retrieves the career palace in Zi Wei Dou Shu, making the purpose vague compared to sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ziwei_palace_health or ziwei_palace_wealth. The description does not specify contexts where this palace is relevant, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.